In R (on the application of John Mars Jones on his own behalf and on behalf of the Pylon The Pressure Group) v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy  EWHC 1111 (Admin), the High Court dismissed the judicial review of a Development Consent Order made under the Planning Act 2008 by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Order authorised an overhead electricity line to wind farms following developer requests to connect to the network. The Claimant, whose Grade II* listed Tudor farm lay within 125 metres of the route, challenged the decision to make the Order on several grounds, including the treatment of heritage effects.
The Secretary of State was required to regard to two relevant policy statements under section 5 of the 2008 Act – Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (“EN-1”) and the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5) (“EN-5”). The policy statements together required careful consideration of the feasibility of alternatives to overhead lines and the protection of heritage assets. He was required to determined the Order application in accordance with them unless, among other things, satisfied that the adverse impact of the proposals would outweigh the benefits. He was also required to have regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting (under regulation 3 of the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations 2010).
The Order was approved, on the basis that in the absence of substantial harm, there was no need for the disproportionate costs of undergrounding the cable section.
Dismissing the challenge, Lewis, J held on the main grounds that:
- The approach to heritage effects had been correct – identifying the scale of harm and then weighing the scheme benefits against, among other things, the heritage harm.
- The regulation 3 duty had been complied with looking at the report and decision as a whole. There was no duty to consider alternatives not forming part of the Order scheme and the option of refusal had been properly considered.
- Permanent extinguishment of private rights – despite the temporary nature of the Order -was not a principal controversial issue and did not require specific reasons to be given on it.
- The fact that the weighing exercise was in a different part of the part of the report to the assessment of heritage harm did not matter. It is worth noting that the limited (30 year) duration of the Order was accepted as minimising the impact on the setting of the listed buildings (being for period which would be insubstantial relative to the life of the buildings) and offering a sensitive approach to heritage effects.